Shipbucket

1. Your airwing doesn't seem to reflect that. (Though someone brought up the Swordfish earlier. When was the VK.2 designed?)
2. That may work. You seem to have enough hull for it, but you're still underutilizing your hull's potential.
3. That isn't a good idea. Say the ship is sinking fast, you wouldn't have the time to break into a locker and lug the rafts out.
4. I thought so , in that case you'll have to add some lines and shading showing that the funnels are popping out like that.
Try looking at these to see what I mean:
Akagi
Akagi with smaller funnel
Shokaku
Unryu

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

1) The VK-2 was designed in the 1910's and would be still in production due to the slow pace of aircraft development.
2) I was originally was going to have some large calibre guns (I.e 6'' or so) but I found that the mounts are too large but I did not change the hull usage.
3) That's why they have explosive bolts on the hinges.
4) I will do that.

As per usual, you have no sense of scale

See those round things hanging on the superstructure? You can't just stow them in a locker.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Inflatables you can.

Inflatable life rafts did not appear until after the war. They had rubber dinghies, but they had to be inflated the hard way and were totally unsuitable as liferafts.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Well yes but due to the technically of the empire in a sate of that certain inventions are made early or a lot later, inflatable rafts being the former.

And here starts the downward spiral that most of my topics go down due to people not inferring what other people post.

This is something that you seem to have a hard time understanding.

It is exceptionally difficult to change the progression of historic technologies without having knock-on effects down the line. This is why the vast majority of the AUs here assume a historic technological progression.

Now as for the ship itself, the early carriers for the most part had the hanger deck as the main strength deck (this is the deck that helps carry many of the stresses that the hull endures). It was not until much later that the flight deck became the strength deck. This is confirmed on yours because you have a hanger deck that is entirely supported above the hull along the entire length.

As for the hanger deck, you don't have it tall enough. Friedman doesn't have any data for CV-1 because she didn't have a conventional hanger - she had a hanger area, but then the planes had to be lifted onto the elevator with a crane, a process that took over 10 minutes per aircraft. The data for CV-4 (USS Ranger) give a hanger clearance height of 18' 11", which would be a good basis to work off of. Right now you've got 12-14. You need at least another 4-6 feet of hanger height, and I'd make it 5-7. This ties in with the aft portholes - If we go by those, you have a height between decks of just 6 feet. That's a 5 foot useable height and a foot for decks and equipment that goes between decks. As other people have noted, the rigging should probably be scrapped until such time as the rest of the ship is done. I'd also suggest that you look at the drawings of Langley (CV-1) and Saratoga (CV-3) in the US folder to get a better feel for a carrier.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I have discussed about the hanger with Raxar and my hanger sinks into the hull slightly.
And the flight deck does not take any hull stress it is thick to try and stop bombs from reaching the soft nether-regions.

Here is the thing - I made that assumption when I measured the heights. The 14 foot height assumes that the gun gallery is on the same level as the hanger, and the 12 foot height assumes that the deck is generally level and is above the top level of the aft portholes. Even if the aft level of portholes are on the same level as the hanger deck level, you've got at most 18 feet (which would be enough for two decks), but you've still got the deck height issue aft, and you've got a gallery area that doesn't match up with any deck. This would cause stress and problems, not to mention difficulty in access.
Congratulations, you've introduced a top-weight problem. If we assume you've got a deck of STS (Special Treatment Steel), you've got a thickness of 24 inches. In all likelihood, it's more like 5 with a 5 inch cover of wood and the structural supports bring it up to the 24 inch thickness we see. Even with just 5 inches of STS, each square foot will weight 200 lbs. That's just for the armor. That's on par with the deck armor of BB-49, which didn't have the disadvantage of having to support the armor over a large empty hanger. I strongly recommend that you find a resource and read up on aircraft carrier design before you continue.

For an example of why this isn't the best idea, take four sheets of paper, and wrap them around a soda can. Tape them up so they are all the same height and diameter. Now place them upright on a table, and put a hardcover book (something substantive, such as a text book) on top of them.

Now shake the table.

Even if you tape the book to the paper, and the paper to the table, it's going to sway, and probably fall over. This is a semi-practical example of why this is a Bad Idea™. Putting the armor under the hanger deck means that you don't have to have a big hole in it for the elevator, and you don't have the weight up so high. Also keep in mind that the Essex class, the first carrier to start carrying armor protection above the hanger only had 1.5 inches of it. While the British did use armored flight decks, I don't have direct access to the specifications thereof. The reason the US didn't was because a thinner deck would be easier to repair when damaged as well as not overly contributing to the top weight of the ship.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

The drawing is before I add the armoured belt and I have done the maths and I can have a armoured flight deck.
And this is supposed to be a British design not an American one.